Wednesday, June 24, 2015

If Moscow Fails to Understand that Yerevan is Not a Maidan, That Alone Could Make It One, Markedonov Says

Paul
Goble

Staunton, June 24 – Many Russian analysts
(e.g.; svpressa.ru/politic/article/125748/)
are hurrying to suggest that this week’s protests in Yerevan and their
suppression by the Armenian government are the opening round of a new Maidan,
an anti-Moscow action that is being promoted and exploited by the West as part
of a broader geopolitical struggle.

But such an interpretation of
events, especially if it comes to guide policy, could prove to be the worst
form of a self-fulfilling prophecy, transforming what are entirely natural
protests by Armenians about domestic conditions into something more and should
Moscow choose to defend the existing authorities in Yerevan no matter what
alienating that country from Russia.

That is the conclusion Sergey
Markedonov of the Russian State Humanities University offers in his latest
commentary, one that constitutes a clear warning to the Kremlin as well as to
analysts inside Russia and abroad about misreading the situation on the ground
by trying to make everything fit into a pre-existing framework (politcom.ru/18911.html).

Those who read every case of popular
discontent in the post-Soviet space as a Maidan or proto-Maidan are falling
victim to a kind of “’geopolitical determinism,’ according to which practically
any of them … is only an expression of ‘a proxy war’ between the United States
and Russia.”

Such people are taking the lazy way
out and forgetting that “a political crisis is not a virus” that spreads from one place to another
but rather reflects specific problems, however much some of those who are
participating in it – both in the regimes and in those who oppose them – draw on
other cases for their vocabulary.

What is happening in Armenia is
decidedly not like what happened in Ukraine, Markedonov says.For one thing, Russia considers Armenia “its
strategic partner,” and for another, the government and the people are not
divided in their attitude toward Moscow. Some in the government question
Yerevan’s ties with Russia; and many in the streets would like to see those
ties deeper.

In short, the Moscow analyst
says, the issue of Russia “is not the defining element in their struggle;” and
it is critically important that “in Moscow people do not fall victim to
emotions and look for signs of a Maidan where they are hard to find.” Instead,
Russia must recognize that the protesters are not unhappy with Moscow but with
Yerevan.

“If Russian politicians and
diplomats draw incorrect conclusions and link the opposition to the actions of
the State Department,” Markedonov says, then they will create a situation in
which Moscow will have to support the Armenian government no matter what,
something that could have the effect of alienating Armenians from it.

In that event, what is a domestic
Armenian problem today could become a Maidan tomorrow and thus something larger
and more dangerous for Russia. Instead, the analyst urges that Russia keep its
lines open to both the government and people of Armenia and encourage a
settlement rather than backing only one horse.

Markedonov concludes with the
observation that he “has no illusions relative to the good intentions of the
Americans or Europeans with regard to Russian interests on the post-Soviet
space. But to reduce everything that occurs them to the ill intentions of the
US, NATO or the EU is an enormous mistake which can have negative consequences
for Russian-Armenian relations.”